clone_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the simple action. Since no annotations are provided, the description should explain side effects, such as whether children are cloned, if the clone has the same properties, or if it is positioned immediately. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, but could benefit from bullet points or more structure at no cost to verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (cloning a node) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (likely the new node ID), whether children are cloned, or any constraints. For a tool with many siblings, this lack of context makes it hard to choose correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the tool's purpose. No explanation of how x and y affect the clone's position is provided beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('clone') and the resource ('existing node in Figma'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also create nodes (e.g., create_component, create_rectangle), which could cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if only a shallow copy is needed).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.